The problem is that people's 'cultures' are impeding on the services in Holy Orthodoxy, thus dividing people along ethnic lines and driving away potential converts; also the net effect of losing members in some parts of the church. Above I said we are LUCKY to have all these ethnic groups here in America because it gives us a better picture and view of the Orthodox faith. Where I disagree again is dividing the Church along ethnic lines with services done in a language that only the old timers & first generation type immigrants understand. Ask the younger Greek crowd why they don't attend Liturgy these days, most likely you'll get a response such as not understanding what's going on in the service and other confusion about why we even attend church, along with the beliefs of the faith. I think my views are a fair assessment and speak toward the REALITY of the current situation in some parts of the Church.

I do not completely agree with this. When I was a Roman Catholic, I would attend 2 latin-rite parishs. One performed the Tridentine rite while the other performed the Novus Ordo Missae in Italian (with a few English services during the weekday). I am second generation Italian/French and take an hour train ride then walk to this parish, instead of going to the English only one about a 7 minute walk from my house. The congregation was not soley Italian immigrants. You found a wide variety of people (Italians from recent migrants to 4 generations old, converts, Anglos, Germans, even an elderly Chinese couple). Why did they come? They each had their reasons. Some were drawn because they felt a home with it being in English, some by the people, some by the culture, some because they were led to the Church by an Italian, etc. This same parish, soon the Priest was moved to a new parish and a English-only speaking Priest was positioned there. The parish was nearly empty during mass; it was as if the congregation lost its home. It was extremely emotional for many. Grandparents who had taken part in the baptism of their grandchildren in the same parish their own children were baptised in left, converts who had entered into that parish left, couples who were married in that parish left. The last people to leave were not the converts, not the Anglos, the Scots, the Germans, but several Italian families who could not let the parish go. Long storey short... The parish has a new priest, is now majority Portuguese, and another local parish that was Italian is overcrowded by having to fit nearly two congregations.

I am not saying a majority English Church will not be a welcoming place for North American inquirers and all, but you have to worry about not only ostracising the 'ethnic' members but her converts too. I am, like I mentioned before, Italian/French and am converting at a Serbian Orthodox Church (who are some of the most ethno-centric people on the planet) but I feel welcome, whether I am at the parish I am going to or another, with a Serb or without. You just have to avoid soccer discussions and talking about how Grappa is clearly superior in every aspect to Komovica. I, personally, wouldn't want it any other way. I used to attend the English liturgy just to learn about the liturgy, but now, I would never dream of going to one that isn't in Slavonic. I am a "ethno-centrist"? Well, I don't think so, pretty hard since there is no Italian Orthodox Church (well, canonically at least ), but I am a "ethno-preservationist".

A side note to all this, I do believe the issue is different in Canada compared to the US. Canada is not so melting-pot compared to the US (a mosaic as they taught us in school ), so I really think it would be a MUCH harder sell North of the border. People rarely view themselves as hyphenations up here, and I cannot see it starting anytime soon. I cannot see a "united" Church in North America working without Ethnic diocese like the OCA has now. Is this ideal? Probably not, but hey, I voted no. Anyways, just my 2 cents. Thought it was about time I chimed in here.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 01:07:09 AM by Friul »

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Ozgeorge, clearly there are some here that seem rather 'ethno centric'. I find some of greekishchristians views quite absurd.

Perhaps I'm in the early stages of senility, I don't know, but could you please point out which posts of GiC's or anyone else smacks of ethno-centrism? So far, the only posts I can find which sound ethnocentric are coming from those who want to establish an American Orthodox Church based on a white, west-european culture. And that seems to be Orthodox Bagpiper.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 06:43:21 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I cannot see a "united" Church in North America working without Ethnic diocese like the OCA has now. Is this ideal? Probably not, but hey, I voted no. Anyways, just my 2 cents. Thought it was about time I chimed in here.

The questions was not if you think there will be a united Orthodox church in North America, The question is Do you want a united Orthodox Church in North America.

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

Perhaps I'm in the early stages of senility, I don't know, but could you please point out which posts of GiC's or anyone else smacks of ethno-centrism? So far, the only posts I can find which sound ethnocentric are coming from those who want to establish an American Orthodox Church based on a white, west-european culture. And that seems to be Orthodox Bagpiper.

GIC seems to have an obsession with the Greek culture, yet denies that America has its own culture and that we shouldn't have a national Orthodox Church. I wouldn't say that we have a very traditional culture like say that of Germany or France with longstanding traditions, but we are unique with customs that make us different culturally from other countries. I guess if we are cultureless you should educate all those misinformed journalist and newspaper columnist who often write about and use such phrases as "American Culture" in thier columns. Despite the debate about culture, why would any of you stand in the way of the unification of an American Orthodox Church? I could only think of self hating Americans and others who despise us for some reason. Every other country deserves an Orthodox Church, accept for America!

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

I wouldn't say that we have a very traditional culture like say that of Germany or France with longstanding traditions, but we are unique with customs that make us different culturally from other countries. I guess if we are cultureless you should educate all those misinformed journalist and newspaper columnist who often write about and use such phrases as "American Culture" in thier columns.

Again, go back to his most recent posts about culture. I can't say I disagree a whole lot about his most current posts.

Despite the debate about culture, why would any of you stand in the way of the unification of an American Orthodox Church? I could only think of self hating Americans and others who despise us for some reason. Every other country deserves an Orthodox Church, accept for America!

I'm Canadian .

I'm not saying (North) America does not deserve a Church, it is just I fear that with a (North) American Orthodox Church, the pre-existing cultures, traditions, languages within the Church would be pushed or fall by the wayside. That is something I would never want to see happen. Unless there will be overlapping ethnic diocese (which sort of defeats the purpose of all this I suppose) or hyphenated Churchs, I wouldn't want to see it come into existance. I want to go to a Greek wedding and see wreaths, I want to go to a Slavic wedding and see crowns, I want to go to a Serbian parish and celebrate my future Slava, etc. Personally, I think the American melting pot mentality is an issue even with this throught of a United Orthodox Church, if it could somehow be more mosaic-y, it would be a different story. I still think ethno-preservationist is the best word for it. No offense to Americans, though I know I will be flamed for this, but I fear what this 'American culture' could do to the existing cultural traditions. You see the unfortunate influences everywhere (from personal experience), you have to go to very small towns in Europe to trying be in Europe and not America with a different language and a few other traditions. A McDonalds in Rome is a disgusting eyesore. Not to bash Americans, but I do believe your culture would absolutely dominate and bring ethnic parishs, etc to ruin in a united Church. Even in Roman Catholicism, they are pushing for the return to Latin, not greater use of the vernacular. I know that is a totally different can of worms, but it shows that not all people want a completely Americanised Church. I don't. I am converting into the Serbian Orthodox Church, I will be getting married in it, if we are blessed with children one day they will be baptised and raised in it, I'll celebrate our Slava with them, and if blessed with one, pass it down to my son, etc. Am I ethnically Serbian? Nope, right next store to the former Yugoslavia, but no Serb blood as far as I know. But I would fight tooth and nail to make sure the traditions are kept. They are now (or well be) my traditions too, even though I cannot trace back my blood to the 'motherland'.

I am sure people will enjoy picking this all apart, but unless the cultures and traditions can be maintained and passed down, I would be against a united American Church. Unfortunatly, I cannot see assimilation mean anything but destruction. Even if the Church did decide to pick a choose traditions (ie: Slava), I do not believe it would have the same meaning. The Church's traditions would be some Frankenstein. Without these migrants to the New World and their traditions, Orthodoxy would be next to non-existant here. They at least deserve the respect and gratitude of allowing their traditions, language and culture to go unharmed and maintained without having to succumb to American culture. Now, before someone says I am anti-American (which I have been accused of before, but I am Canadian so that is no surprise ), that is not the case.

A little side note and not to sound SOC vs Montenegro/FYROM, but I cannot see many Canadians being happy about an "American" Church. When I was looking into conversion, many 'non-ethnics' (your Anglos, Germans, etc) were looking at ROCOR and the GOC (One was going the WRO route too) rather than the OCA because of the American tag and its American nature. They found the Church had no tradition and were drawn much more to the ethnic Churches, their 'richer liturgy' and 'richer traditions'.

Anyways, that is my rambling on this for a bit. Take it or leave it, it is just my opinion and what I have witnessed.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

A little side note and not to sound SOC vs Montenegro/FYROM, but I cannot see many Canadians being happy about an "American" Church. When I was looking into conversion, many 'non-ethnics' (your Anglos, Germans, etc) were looking at ROCOR and the GOC (One was going the WRO route too) rather than the OCA because of the American tag and its American nature. They found the Church had no tradition and were drawn much more to the ethnic Churches, their 'richer liturgy' and 'richer traditions'.

Friul,

I'm Canadian too. I see this issue you bring up in this quotation as a red herring at best. People who actually bother to attend an OCA service will see how it follows Eastern Slavic liturgical form in many respects and adds a few things that they like from other traditions here and there. I grant you that there are a few parishes that don't adhere strongly enough to Orthodox architectural tradition (when that is possible), but there are parishes like that in every jurisdiction. The fact of the matter is that parishes of many jurisdictions in Canada (including the OCA) tend to be way too insular in their ethnicity and as a consequence attract little interest. The explosive growth of the OCA in British Columbia (and I do mean explosive, even though Orthodoxy is still a very small presence there compared to other faiths) would never have been possible following the model you propose.

Having said all this, I am delighted to see you posting here, and I think it's quite wonderful that someone of Italian background like yourself is embracing Orthodoxy.

GIC seems to have an obsession with the Greek culture, yet denies that America has its own culture and that we shouldn't have a national Orthodox Church. I wouldn't say that we have a very traditional culture like say that of Germany or France with longstanding traditions, but we are unique with customs that make us different culturally from other countries. I guess if we are cultureless you should educate all those misinformed journalist and newspaper columnist who often write about and use such phrases as "American Culture" in thier columns.

I see the irony continues to be lost on you. When I was a young student, I once hitchiked a lift with a fruck driver when my car broke down. A police car overtook us, and the truckdriver proceeded to say how stupid and lazy the policeman was because he was not booking everyone in front of him for speeding, since it was obvious they were speeding because they were ahead of his truck and he was doing the speed limit. No matter how many times I tried to explain, he just couldn't get it. So in the end, I just gave up.

Despite the debate about culture, why would any of you stand in the way of the unification of an American Orthodox Church? I could only think of self hating Americans and others who despise us for some reason.

No one, not even GiC has said on this thread that they don't want a united Orthodox Church in the Americas. What they disagree with is how it should be acheived. Your model of an autocephalous Church on the same model as the OCA is not the only possibility. Yet because you think it is the only possibility, you think anyone who objects to it is objecting to a united Orthodox Church in America....you're stuck in non-lateral thinking, kind of like my truckdriver friend....

Africa is composed of 47 Countries, yet it has only one Eastern Orthodox Church under one Patriarch, and has done so for nearly 2 millenia. The Ecumenical Patriarchate can hardly be caused the Church of a particular country now, can it?Is the Patriarch of Jerusalem the Patriarch of Israel, Palestine or both?Which one country is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East the Patriach of?Check out my new signature Nacho: "Feelings aren't facts"......do you like it?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I'm Canadian too. I see this issue you bring up as a red herring at best. People who actually bother to attend an OCA service will see how it follows Eastern Slavic liturgical form in many respects and adds a few things that they like from other traditions here and there. I grant you that there are a few parishes that don't adhere strongly enough to Orthodox architectural tradition (when that is possible), but there are parishes like that in every jurisdiction. The fact of the matter is that parishes of many jusrisdictions in Canada tend to be way too insular in their ethnicity and as a consequence attract little interest. The explosive growth of the OCA in British Columbia (and I do mean explosive, even though Orthodoxy is still a very small presence there compared to other faiths) would never have been possible following the model you propose.

I am sure it depends on where in the country as well. All I can comment on is how it is in Southern Ontario. Maybe it is because of the huge amount of ethnic Churchs in the region (especially the Golden Horseshoe region), but the OCA is really minor here, attracts few and very few 'adhere strongly enough to Orthodox architectural tradition' as you said [though I would never hold that against a Church, it is still a house of God]. I went to one in Hamilton and one in Toronto (I was already converting in the Serbian Church, but wanted to see others). The one in Hamilton was on the second storey in a cube brick building and the liturgy was in a VERY small room. It was a very plain room, not ornate at all, with few icons. Nothing I would hold against it of course. But something about it felt very off. The nature of the priest, the congregation, and even the liturgy reminded me of Protestant services. Another person I was there with, who was looking into the GOC (he was about as Anglo as they come and came from a Presb background), and he could not believe the difference between the two Churches (GOC and OCA). The Church in Toronto was slightly better. The building was quite large, but nearly empty during the Liturgy (maybe a dozen or two, in a Church that could fit hundreds). I decided to talk to the Priest afterwards (an amazing man, I must add), about the size of his congregation, etc. He said that was about it, even during Pascha. It, at a time, was much larger, but people left for the nearby large Greek Orthodox Church. They, and they actually told him this, felt they were missing too much of 'Orthodoxy' in the OCA (many are now at St. George's Greek Orthodox Church). I obviously cannot speak for the whole country, or even the whole GTA, but from what I have witnessed over here, the OCA is in a dire position population wise. Again, maybe it is due to the nature of the GTA and Ontario, but the Serbian, Greek, and Russian Churchs were very welcoming and many do make themselves known. There is a Romanian Orthodox Church group who (with their Priests and laity), sell icons, religious books and publishings, etc on Dundas Square in Toronto from time to time. They are fundraising to build a monastery and to educate people about Orthodoxy during Ethnic festivals (which everyone attends, from Anglos to Africans) or Romanian things (which again, all sorts attend, even me, I like the food and music ). Will that work everywhere? Probably not. Toronto and the GTA is a unqiue case I suppose.

Having said all this, I am delighted to see you posting here, and I think it's quite wonderful that someone of Italian background like yourself is embracing Orthodoxy.

Thank you very much. My 3rd cousin has converted to the SOC while serving in KFOR and one of my uncles is part of the Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia as well.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

First and most importantly, Bob is from the disgustingly little boring village known as Ottawa. Right now, he is so smitten with Senators flu, he might try walking on water. LOL (I hope you're not a Sens fan too, otherwise I'll have to contact your Priest).

Bob,

<serious hat on> I don't want to put words in Friul's mouth, but it seems as though he may fear "American style" phyletism (if you will). In my original reply in this thread, I said something to the effect of not minding a "North American" Orthodox Church. I don't mind bringing everyone together in one Church (in fact I am all for it), I would just hope that the prevailing reason for doing so, would be the "Orthodox" part and not the "American" part.

Like Friul, I also strongly support retaining certain traditions that follow a certain ethnicity (like Slava), so even it there was union, I would NEVER give up my Slava.

First and most importantly, Bob is from the disgustingly little boring village known as Ottawa. Right now, he is so smitten with Senators flu, he might try walking on water. LOL (I hope you're not a Sens fan too, otherwise I'll have to contact your Priest).

LoL, that explains a lot then. Poor guy, they will get his hopes up and yet again choke.

<serious hat on> I don't want to put words in Friul's mouth, but it seems as though he may fear "American style" phyletism (if you will). In my original reply in this thread, I said something to the effect of not minding a "North American" Orthodox Church. I don't mind bringing everyone together in one Church (in fact I am all for it), I would just hope that the prevailing reason for doing so, would be the "Orthodox" part and not the "American" part.

Like Friul, I also strongly support retaining certain traditions that follow a certain ethnicity (like Slava), so even it there was union, I would NEVER give up my Slava.

You said it much better than my ramblings. A North American Orthodox Church or Orthodox Church of the Americas is one thing, but an American Orthodox Church is another. I worry about the American part trying to trump the pre-existing Serbian, Greek, Russian, etc parts when/if the Church would unite in that way. I also worry about just picking and choosing traditions for this 'American culture'. As SS99 mentioned, the Slava. I am would never be against the practice of taking a family patron saint (my family has one, and they are of Roman Catholic origins), but the Slava is a unique tradition. I would hate to see it lose its meaning and importance to the Serbs in the New World (which it has been a key part for hundreds and hundreds of years) because the American Orthodox Church starts a general patron family saint tradition that does not share the same deep meaning. And I would hate for the celebration of the Slava to vanish since American Priests find the practice foreign and either do not understand it or do not know how to properly celebrate/bless it with a family. The problem I want to see avoided is the watering down or removal of traditional aspects from the 'old countries' for the sake of making a culturally American Church.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 04:24:24 PM by Friul »

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

I used to attend the English liturgy just to learn about the liturgy, but now, I would never dream of going to one that isn't in Slavonic.

But note, Friul, that you had to attend the English liturgy so that you would understand what's going on. What happens to the Greek/Russian/Serbian/whatever youth that only have an option in a language they don't understand? The fact that we're not making comprehensibility a priority in some of our parishes--that is, where such a need is evident and the parish is not serving a primarily immigrant community--is appalling...

But note, Friul, that you had to attend the English liturgy so that you would understand what's going on. What happens to the Greek/Russian/Serbian/whatever youth that only have an option in a language they don't understand? The fact that we're not making comprehensibility a priority in some of our parishes--that is, where such a need is evident and the parish is not serving a primarily immigrant community--is appalling...

A sizeable amount of Orthodox Churches in my area have at least a monthly Liturgy in English, while the rest are in the Church's mother tongue. I believe that is a great opportunity to attend the liturgy and eventually step up to the Liturgy in Slavonic/Greek/Romanian/etc. But, can one learn the Liturgy without an English one? Yes. When I was a Roman Catholic, I had to learn the Tridentine mass and Church Latin on my own and with the assistance of my Priest, so it is not impossible. Comprehensibility is, though I can only speak for the area I am from, a priority. The thing is, the demand is simply not there. The majority of English Liturgies I have gone to (over a few jurisdictions) were sparsely attended. During certain months, many are cancelled due to lack of demand. What I am worried about is losing the beauty of the Liturgy in these languages by simply trumping them all with an English one. When I attended English ones, it was a means to an end, I never dreamed of only attending the English one over the Slavonic one always. I find parishes around here are making quite an effort by offering a few English Liturgies, and would hope they avoid offering fewer and fewer in their mother tongue.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Ozgeorge, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I know you might hate hearing that but I don't see much common ground here. I believe we should have an American Orthodox Church with services done primarily in English. Until that happens and with the way things are currently run in some jurisdictions, it will just repel the majority of people interested in converting. Unfortunately this makes Orthodoxy a footnote in the American religious scene, but a united American Orthodox Church would stand as a beacon of light. I'm sure you guys will once again flame me for this, but I have already proven my case. Many jurisdictions are losing their members, but yet you guys want to remain in some kind of fantasy world and pretend that everything is ok. I'm only advocating balance, it's not like I'm taking some kind of extreme position. People can still have their ethnic traditions and customs, and the social hour after Liturgy is perfect for such things.

I do agree allot with what Southserb has been saying in some of his post. He sees the need for balance also. I would even be for alternating between English & what other language people want to do the Liturgy in. This gives both ethnics and converts representation in the Church. Change doesn't have to come overnight, but there should be a slow progression towards working for a unified church that is relevant to the people/culture it is surrounded by.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Habs fan...huh... (not sure if that is much better - lol). In any event, I agree with what you wrote above, but above that, I think you're a class act.

LoL! 1966-67 vs 1992-93

Thank you, by the way.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

this brings to point a question that has been troubling us. there is such an emphasis on "not proselytizing" ( can't get one set spelling of that word) that I believe many in the ethnic based churches use this as a crutch to do nothing at all. Orthodoxy was alive here in my very famous town for years, but i never knew it. Now as we plan for Jerry's funeral/viewing I think back to all the holes in doctrine and know that they drove me to search for Orthodoxy-BUT where was it all that time? I drove by the building that houses our parish, but where were it's people? I believe without some sort of American church, like just about all other countries seem to have, we struggle to find our place amongst the ethnic traditions, and cultural heritage that comes stock with Orthodoxy here. I LOVE the rich tradition and culture of the Greek folk we attend church with, it's just not my heritage. It would be far harder for me to come up with one as "mixed" as I am, so I don't have that option really available. However, the more Orthodoxy is limited as being ethinic or ethnically based it's going to keep a LOT of people away. I guarantee those that i grew up with here in this bastion of protestantism aren't going to see it as anything other than "those people"- because the culture will alienate them. It did me at first, only briefly, but I was so fed up I didn't care for very long. Is that what it's got to take? Making people die of thirst, and then only offer them some foreign culture? That isnt what Orthodoxy is supposed to be about. Orthodoxy can't be seen as only whichever culture is attached by whomever is introducing it. Orthodoxy has to be the true Faith in a way that the American masses can access it readily. IF this means having an American Orthodox church, then yes-we need one. Otherwise, the two homeschooling Orthodox moms here in Jerrytown are going to continue to be ostracized by clueless protestant "sisters" Some even run up and annoint us with canola oil to "help" us. (they think we need it)How can we be out there in our community, with the "no proselytizing" clause and still be visible and available? I love the services done in partial Greek, simply because English is such a lazy language-but then what do I know. It is beautiful, but language is going to keep a lot of people away...

sorry to ramble, we are all kind of upside down with Jerry's sudden death yesterday. Whether you agree with him or not, he played a big part in my life and my dh's life-we would not have found Orthodoxy without him and his "vision" so FWIW.rebecca

calligraphqueen, what a great post! This is what a few others and I have been saying over and over in this thread, but no one seems to listen or care about the REALITY of the situation. They don't care enough that we are losing members, as long as they keep the exclusive ethnic club going that’s all that matters. Unfortunately, I see this as nothing to do with real genuine Christianity. I can guarantee you that the apostles would not run the modern church in such order. They would be out there evangelizing and telling people about the true faith; and the barriers between ethnic jurisdictions would be done away with. It sickens me that the Orthodox Church is so unevangelistic. I had to listen to some AG protestant guy glowingly talk about the thousands of missionaries and millions they have converted overseas the other day. He talked about some of the social institutions and schools they have also set up in some of the countries they are working in. I actually didn't tell him I was Orthodox because I felt so embarrassed that our efforts pale in comparison to one protestant sect.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

calligraphqueen, what a great post! This is what a few others and I have been saying over and over in this thread, but no one seems to listen or care about the REALITY of the situation.

I wouldn't quite say so...it is more HOW calligraphqueen said as opposed to you and Bagpiper. You two seemed to almost say it from a...ummm...."Jerry" mindset (sorry to be blunt). She had some seriously good tact.

It sickens me that the Orthodox Church is so unevangelistic. I had to listen to some AG protestant guy glowingly talk about the thousands of missionaries and millions they have converted overseas the other day. He talked about some of the social institutions and schools they have also set up in some of the countries they are working in. I actually didn't tell him I was Orthodox because I felt so embarrassed that our efforts pale in comparison to one protestant sect.

Nacho, you do realise that if you set up the "Autocephalous Church of the USA" as is your grand vision that it's jurisdiction will end at the borders of the USA don't you? The Autocephalous Church of the USA will not be able to send missions to other countires.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 07:53:25 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Nacho, you do realise that if you set up the "Autocephalous Church of the USA" as is your grand vision that it's jurisdiction will end at the borders of the USA don't you? The Autocephalous Church of the USA will not be able to send missions to other countires.

George,

We send missionaries to Africa to help out the Patriarchate of Alexandria. We have missionaries in Albania and Romania.Missionaries are not empire builders. They go to help other patriarchates. Whether we are autocephalous or not, missionary work will remain the same. We will send them where they are needed.I don't think we will have an autocephalous church of the USA. I think it will be regional like the patriarchate of Alexandria.They have a whole continent. We may see something like the Patriarchate of North America one day.

Tamara, "Sending missionaries" is very different to "establishing missions". Nacho is talking about bringing Orthodoxy to where there was no Orthodoxy.The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia is an Exarchate of the Oecumenical Patriarchate and therefore has been able to set up missions in Madagasca, Indonesia, Korea, New Guinea etc. So far, Korea and New Zealand have been able to become their own Archdioceses in the space of less than 20 years, and have even established their own monasteries, and Indonesia and Madagascar are well on the way.If we were the "Church of Australia" we would not be able to establish these missions. And rightly so. If Nacho wants a Church of the USA for cultural reasons, then it would be a bit of a double standard for the Church of the USA to then establish missions in other countries and impose it's culture on them.....

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Tamara, "Sending missionaries" is very different to "establishing missions". Nacho is talking about bringing Orthodoxy to where there was no Orthodoxy.The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia is an Exarchate of the Oecumenical Patriarchate and therefore has been able to set up missions in Madagasca, Indonesia, Korea, New Guinea etc. So far, Korea and New Zealand have been able to become their own Archdioceses in the space of less than 20 years, and have even established their own monasteries, and Indonesia and Madagascar are well on the way.If we were the "Church of Australia" we would not be able to establish these missions. And rightly so. If Nacho wants a Church of the USA for cultural reasons, then it would be a bit of a double standard for the Church of the USA to then establish missions in other countries and impose it's culture on them.....

Well, North America is large enough to keep a North American patriarchate busy building missions for a long time. I would imagine that once we have established extensive mission system in North America we would continue to move southward into central and south America. I think it is already happening now as the OCA and Antiochians move into Mexico and are starting to do missionary work there. I hear of more calls for Spanish translators for catechism and liturgical translations. The missions established south of the border will be Mexican in culture. I don't think anyone would dream of imposing English on the Mexicans.

I guess I am stepping in a little to late for the debate but I think those of you who want an American Orthodox Church need to look at how the larger patriarchates are set up. Most of them cover territory that includes multiple countries. This would mean there are variations in local customs and language. I think the patriarchate of Alexandria is a good example of the future of an Orthodox patriarchate because it is alive and flourishing. At this point in time they only have 2 million Orthodox Christians on the continent and over 300 parish communities. The communities have varied languages and customs that are developing as the Greek monks and the missionaries throughout the world help to establish them.

If we had a North American patriarchate then we would have a patriarchate that would have multiple languages within it's borders (English, French, Spanish and possibly other languages depending on the immigrant communities that would be served).I think someone mentioned that the U.S. has varied regional areas with different cultures which I believe is true. Canada has two very obvious regional areas. And though we may not recognize it, I would imagine Mexico also has regional differences even though most Mexicans speak Spanish. I know U.S. citizens tend to be myopic and project their culture and language onto everyone else as the standard but we really need to have a larger view of what it will mean to evangelize North America.

First and most importantly, Bob is from the disgustingly little boring village known as Ottawa. Right now, he is so smitten with Senators flu, he might try walking on water. LOL (I hope you're not a Sens fan too, otherwise I'll have to contact your Priest).

How are your leafs doing in their playoff run this year, buddy?

Quote

Bob,

<serious hat on> I don't want to put words in Friul's mouth, but it seems as though he may fear "American style" phyletism (if you will). In my original reply in this thread, I said something to the effect of not minding a "North American" Orthodox Church. I don't mind bringing everyone together in one Church (in fact I am all for it), I would just hope that the prevailing reason for doing so, would be the "Orthodox" part and not the "American" part.

Like Friul, I also strongly support retaining certain traditions that follow a certain ethnicity (like Slava), so even it there was union, I would NEVER give up my Slava.

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451)Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him.

This canon does not grant Constantinople jurisdiction over all territories outside of the canonical boundaries of established Patriarchates/Metropolitanates as the EP currently claims. If anything, this canon actually limits Constantinople's direct jurisdiction to the specific regions of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia (modern-day Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey) and the immediately surrounding areas. Constantinople's claims to jurisdiction over all Orthodox faithful in the Diaspora based on this canon is really a power grab by the EP dating back to about 1920 with Patriarch Meletios, as (Moscow) Patriarch Alexei's recent letter to (Constantinople) Patriarch Bartholomew states so adroitly.

What does this mean to this thread? It means simply that the EP has no canonical foundation for setting himself up as primate of the Orthodox churches in North America, a land that prior to 1920 was united under the jurisdiction of Moscow--even an EP prior to Meletios recognized this by referring Greek Orthodox faithful in America to the care of the local Russian Synod when they asked for bishops from their homeland. In establishing himself as a rival primate in a territory ruled by another Orthodox metropolitan, the EP violated many of those canons that forbid exactly this hierarchical conduct (e.g., Canon 2 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) and Canon 8 of the Council of Ephesus (431)). To those who seek a proper solution to the jurisdictional problem in North America based on the canons and not on history, I offer this remedy mandated in the same Canon 8 from Ephesus: the Ecumenical Patriarchate should relinquish all American churches in his jurisdiction back to Moscow, whose authority he usurped.

The canon has been clearly understood to mean universal jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Throne outside the boundaries of the other four Patriarchates (and Cypress, of course) since at the very least the time of Balsamon. The Russians even accepted this view and didn't even question it until the 16th Cenutry, and even then they agreed to this as part of the synod that gave them autonomy. Moscow is a daughter Church to Constantinople and has the Canonical Right, in accordance with the rights granted to her by the Oecumenical Synods, to revoke or alter the conditions of Moscow's autonomy whenever she sees fit: including, but not limited to, adjusting the territory under Moscow's jurisdiction.

Of course, this isn't even an issue, because when Moscow was granted autonomy her jurisdiction was limited to the political boundaries of 16th century Russia. The incursion of the Church into Alaska was an uncanonical act. It was an intrusion into the land that rightfully belongs to the Oecumenical Throne.

In accordance with the interpretations of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos, and in accordance with the terms of Russian autonomy, Russia needs to withdraw her influence into her canonical borders, leaving all lands in the New World to the Oecumenical Throne. If she fails to do this, her autonomy should be withdrawn by the Great Church of Christ, and those Bishops who fail to submit to Constantinople should be declared Anathema to the Christian Church for the grave offence of Schism.

Of course, if anyone objects to this course of action, he has the right to appeal to Constantinople, which is the ultimate arbitrator of these disputes in accordance with the 9th and 17th Canons of Chalcedon. (It's somewhat like trying to sue the Supreme Court...yeah, you may theoretically get your day in Court (well, probably not, but for the sake of argument...); however, that court will be the Supreme Court and they get to decide the case.)

The canon has been clearly understood to mean universal jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Throne outside the boundaries of the other four Patriarchates (and Cypress, of course) since at the very least the time of Balsamon. The Russians even accepted this view and didn't even question it until the 16th Cenutry, and even then they agreed to this as part of the synod that gave them autonomy. Moscow is a daughter Church to Constantinople and has the Canonical Right, in accordance with the rights granted to her by the Oecumenical Synods, to revoke or alter the conditions of Moscow's autonomy whenever she sees fit: including, but not limited to, adjusting the territory under Moscow's jurisdiction.

Of course, this isn't even an issue, because when Moscow was granted autonomy her jurisdiction was limited to the political boundaries of 16th century Russia. The incursion of the Church into Alaska was an uncanonical act. It was an intrusion into the land that rightfully belongs to the Oecumenical Throne.

In accordance with the interpretations of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos, and in accordance with the terms of Russian autonomy, Russia needs to withdraw her influence into her canonical borders, leaving all lands in the New World to the Oecumenical Throne. If she fails to do this, her autonomy should be withdrawn by the Great Church of Christ, and those Bishops who fail to submit to Constantinople should be declared Anathema to the Christian Church for the grave offence of Schism.

Of course, if anyone objects to this course of action, he has the right to appeal to Constantinople, which is the ultimate arbitrator of these disputes in accordance with the 9th and 17th Canons of Chalcedon. (It's somewhat like trying to sue the Supreme Court...yeah, you may theoretically get your day in Court (well, probably not, but for the sake of argument...); however, that court will be the Supreme Court and they get to decide the case.)

If you can provide evidence that Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus support your pov, I would certainly like to see it, because these authorities you cite actually appear to disagree with you. In addition, Russia was once within Constantinople's jurisdiction because she was at that time the territory of missionaries sent forth from Constantinople--even Russia recognizes the right of a missionary church to jurisdiction over her missionary bishops in a foreign land.

Quote

In accordance with the interpretations of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos, and in accordance with the terms of Russian autonomy, Russia needs to withdraw her influence into her canonical borders, leaving all lands in the New World to the Oecumenical Throne. If she fails to do this, her autonomy should be withdrawn by the Great Church of Christ, and those Bishops who fail to submit to Constantinople should be declared Anathema to the Christian Church for the grave offence of Schism.

Fortunately, you're not the Ecumenical Patriarch, nor do most people here really agree with your Constantinopapism.

Where this debate has headed is precisely the problem. Constantinople didn't send out any representatives to the US (Alaska) because it was too busy being under Turkish rule. Russia bothers to do so, but America in particular has changed drastically since that time-as has the entire North American continent. Orthodoxy has done nothing here but set up little enclaves of immigrants that merely happen to be Orthodox after their heritage. What dirt a person is born on, or whichever dirt their line originated on is irrelevant-as it's not like any of us can choose that.You guys get so busy splitting historical hairs about which EP should be responsible for allowing an American Orthodox (or North American Orthodox church) that you miss the point. America has become it's own powerful nation a long time ago, something that was very different when Alaska was missioned. It's also become a dark and lost country, despite it's Protestant start. While everyone is arguing about the EP, what will become of the US without ORthodoxy or with little bitty teeny weeny elderly ORthodox churches full of elderly Russian women (or Greek, etc) When time comes to an end, Orthodoxy in America will be responsible for little old ladies making perogies and Baklava, having hardly affected one of the most powerful little start up nations of all time. I had an Orthodox Jew ask me what in the world I meant by Orthodox Christianity-at walmart in the town that Jerry built. Nobody knows the truth, because it's hidden by her people who are arguing about who makes the prosphora that week. Where is Orthodoxy, and how is arguing about the proper EP helping Americans find the true Faith? You can't just intellectualize everything by spouting historical fact, because it was never about proving who knows more of their church history.

Where this debate has headed is precisely the problem. Constantinople didn't send out any representatives to the US (Alaska) because it was too busy being under Turkish rule. Russia bothers to do so, but America in particular has changed drastically since that time-as has the entire North American continent. Orthodoxy has done nothing here but set up little enclaves of immigrants that merely happen to be Orthodox after their heritage. What dirt a person is born on, or whichever dirt their line originated on is irrelevant-as it's not like any of us can choose that.You guys get so busy splitting historical hairs about which EP should be responsible for allowing an American Orthodox (or North American Orthodox church) that you miss the point. America has become it's own powerful nation a long time ago, something that was very different when Alaska was missioned. It's also become a dark and lost country, despite it's Protestant start. While everyone is arguing about the EP, what will become of the US without ORthodoxy or with little bitty teeny weeny elderly ORthodox churches full of elderly Russian women (or Greek, etc) When time comes to an end, Orthodoxy in America will be responsible for little old ladies making perogies and Baklava, having hardly affected one of the most powerful little start up nations of all time. I had an Orthodox Jew ask me what in the world I meant by Orthodox Christianity-at walmart in the town that Jerry built. Nobody knows the truth, because it's hidden by her people who are arguing about who makes the prosphora that week. Where is Orthodoxy, and how is arguing about the proper EP helping Americans find the true Faith? You can't just intellectualize everything by spouting historical fact, because it was never about proving who knows more of their church history.

I agree these arguments are silly. They will not change the course of how things will happen. You alluded to something we should never forget. While Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, this doesn't mean that every local church will survive. There are many ancient cities which no longer have an Orthodox Christian presence. We cannot sit back or take a passive attitude toward evangelizing our neighbors. Christ's last words to us on this feast day was an exhortation to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must obey our Lord.

We should all do what we can to hasten unity by working together at the local level and encouraging our bishops to meet regularly. But we need to have a larger vision of what unity will mean in North America.

Where this debate has headed is precisely the problem. Constantinople didn't send out any representatives to the US (Alaska) because it was too busy being under Turkish rule. Russia bothers to do so, but America in particular has changed drastically since that time-as has the entire North American continent. Orthodoxy has done nothing here but set up little enclaves of immigrants that merely happen to be Orthodox after their heritage. What dirt a person is born on, or whichever dirt their line originated on is irrelevant-as it's not like any of us can choose that.You guys get so busy splitting historical hairs about which EP should be responsible for allowing an American Orthodox (or North American Orthodox church) that you miss the point. America has become it's own powerful nation a long time ago, something that was very different when Alaska was missioned. It's also become a dark and lost country, despite it's Protestant start. While everyone is arguing about the EP, what will become of the US without ORthodoxy or with little bitty teeny weeny elderly ORthodox churches full of elderly Russian women (or Greek, etc) When time comes to an end, Orthodoxy in America will be responsible for little old ladies making perogies and Baklava, having hardly affected one of the most powerful little start up nations of all time. I had an Orthodox Jew ask me what in the world I meant by Orthodox Christianity-at walmart in the town that Jerry built. Nobody knows the truth, because it's hidden by her people who are arguing about who makes the prosphora that week. Where is Orthodoxy, and how is arguing about the proper EP helping Americans find the true Faith? You can't just intellectualize everything by spouting historical fact, because it was never about proving who knows more of their church history.

Calligraphqueen, I am of the same mindset. Why are many parts of the Orthodox Church declining in numbers here except for the Antiochian Orthodox Church? I totally agree with what you are saying. Orthodoxy has the potential to become a bunch of old timers making their favorite dish as a hobby for social hour while reminiscing how things were in the 'old country'. The healthiest growth has come from the convert parishes; these are the people who have opened the doors and been active in some basic form of evanglism. They don't put barriers in the way in making new members feel welcome.

Quote

I agree these arguments are silly. They will not change the course of how things will happen. You alluded to something we should never forget. While Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, this doesn't mean that every local church will survive. There are many ancient cities which no longer have an Orthodox Christian presence. We cannot sit back or take a passive attitude toward evangelizing our neighbors. Christ's last words to us on this feast day was an exhortation to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must obey our Lord.

We should all do what we can to hasten unity by working together at the local level and encouraging our bishops to meet regularly. But we need to have a larger vision of what unity will mean in North America.

Tamara, I have read some of your post in this thread and really like what you have to say. You pinpointed one of the main problems facing the Orthodox Church today. Being passive and exclusive has already cost us greatly in losing membership, how long can the ship keep on taking water? At some point the other jurisdictions may have to take a look at what the Antiochians are doing if they want to keep the doors to the Church open. There should be a balance of healthy steady growth while maintaing the traditions that mean so much to us.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Tamara, I have read some of your post in this thread and really like what you have to say. You pinpointed one of the main problems facing the Orthodox Church today. Being passive and exclusive has already cost us greatly in losing membership, how long can the ship keep on taking water? At some point the other jurisdictions may have to take a look at what the Antiochians are doing if they want to keep the doors to the Church open. There should be a balance of healthy steady growth while maintaing the traditions that mean so much to us.

Nacho,

I can understand your frustration at how you see things being done but try to keep in mind that it has really only been a short twenty years since even the Antiochians opened the doors wide for anyone to join Orthodoxy. In an Orthodox time frame, things have changed dramatically in our archdiocese and yet we still have much work to do. Education in the faith is key for those who have been Orthodox forever and for those who are new to the church. Building bridges between the two groups is very important. Many of those seemingly stubborn, ethnocentric immigrants were raised with the notion that preservation and protection of the faith is their role. They were not raised to evangelize because to evangelize meant death in the countries they were born. They unconsciously passed these beliefs on to the children and grandchildren. And while it is true that many of the second and especially the third generation have left the churches in large numbers, most of the immigrants really are at a loss to know how to bring them back to the church because where they come from there was no competition for the church.

While I agree we need to reach out and evangelize I just hope those new to the church can look with gratitude to those who have brought Orthodoxy to America. Many of those old-timers and immigrants have much to share if one gives them the opportunity. If we can look at them as examples of living tradition then it may not only change our perspective of them but it also may change their perspective of themselves. In other words, they may begin to take on the role of mentors in the faith if we look to them with the eyes of a student. What a blessing for everyone if this would happen in reality. We have one Palestinian immigrant woman in our parish who has grown into that role because we have so many who are new to the church and have turned to her to ask her how things were done in the Holy Land. And while some may balk at this idea of trying to imitate what was done in another culture, I would only suggest that Russians learned many things from the Greeks when they were first evangelized and then transformed the traditions and customs to fit within their own culture. . Just alot of random thoughts...I hope some of it makes sense

Fortunately, you're not the Ecumenical Patriarch, nor do most people here really agree with your Constantinopapism.

Amen! By some of greek's reasoning, the EP may as well be the pope with universal papal jurisdiction. I guess the EP has the right to revoke anyones autonomy and has the right to rule over the entire church. By that reasoning, why not go back to the original "first among equils"? He seems to think he rules over the whole church.

Quote

We should all do what we can to hasten unity by working together at the local level and encouraging our bishops to meet regularly. But we need to have a larger vision of what unity will mean in North America.

Amen sister. You hit the nail on the head.

Quote

Calligraphqueen, I am of the same mindset. Why are many parts of the Orthodox Church declining in numbers here except for the Antiochian Orthodox Church? I totally agree with what you are saying. Orthodoxy has the potential to become a bunch of old timers making their favorite dish as a hobby for social hour while reminiscing how things were in the 'old country'. The healthiest growth has come from the convert parishes; these are the people who have opened the doors and been active in some basic form of evanglism. They don't put barriers in the way in making new members feel welcome.

Nacho and Calligraphqueen you are totally right. Being an Orthodox christian is more than being a cultural enthusiast. It is good to like different cultures, but we must be Christians first an foremost. I think things have been changing for the better in the Orthodox church in North America over the last 20 years. We are sort of in a transitional phase. I think things will continue to change for the better in the coming years. The ethnic gettos will eventually fade away, or become rare, and the churches that reach out and are welcoming to all will prosper. Such is the way of things. After all, the Church is guided in all things by the Holy Spirit.

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

I agree these arguments are silly. They will not change the course of how things will happen. You alluded to something we should never forget. While Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, this doesn't mean that every local church will survive. There are many ancient cities which no longer have an Orthodox Christian presence. We cannot sit back or take a passive attitude toward evangelizing our neighbors. Christ's last words to us on this feast day was an exhortation to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must obey our Lord.

We should all do what we can to hasten unity by working together at the local level and encouraging our bishops to meet regularly. But we need to have a larger vision of what unity will mean in North America.

Actually, I don't think I've missed what you see to be the point. If you read my earlier posts on this thread, you should see that I've addressed the issue of Orthodoxy in America from the perspective of what you consider important, because your concerns are also my concerns. I too believe that everything we do as the Church in America must first support our attempts to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and make disciples of the American people. Therefore, I also struggle with the problems of ethnicity, culture, language, secularism, etc., that we face here, both inside and outside our churches.

However, whatever solution we determine is right for American Orthodoxy must also be faithful to the ancient canons of the Church, including those regarding hierarchical jurisdiction agreed upon in the Ecumenical Councils. Our obedience to the Great Commission does not render this canonical side of our issues irrelevant. In determining what is best for our Orthodox mission in America, we must also consider important the resolution of just who has canonical jurisdiction in North America. The problems we face in accomplishing our mission in America do not negate the fact that Christ intended His Church to be a hierarchical organization that must govern itself as such, and that everything we in the Church do must be consistent with our Church's hierarchical order. We Orthodox Christians are bound by dogma to recognize submission to our Church's canonical institution as obedience to Christ Himself.

Regarding the historical issues many here seem to consider irrelevant, we cannot properly determine the canonical solution to our mess without first knowing how we got into this mess to begin with. This puts on us the mandate to investigate and understand the historical development of Orthodoxy in America.

Someone noted folk in Canada going to other parishes because the OCA was "American" - I think I've pointed out before that such "Americanism" was not really American, but an ideological/political Americanism. OCA is still basically East Slavic in custom, liturgy, outlook, etc. Nevermind that having 'American' on something in Canada is a bit short-sighted?

As for the limitations of an American Orthodox Church - what's the worry about it not being able to send out 'missions'? The EP places missions on territory belonging to Antioch (which is Patriarch of All the East and Asia.) The EP is also on territories that Russia historically has served (and does serve: Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.) An American Church could, of course, always help with material and personnel support (nevermind the support of prayer.) Why should anyone expect an American church to 'send out missions'? Does the Church of Poland 'send out missions'? The Finns? Estonians? Czechs? Georgians?

I think some are misunderstanding as well - if we're talking an American church, we're talking the USA. Otherwise, American missions in other lands would just be more American colonialism. Mexico doesn't need to be under an American church - it needs its own Mexican church. In fact, the Mexican church was once the National Catholic Church in that country (the part under the OCA, forced to use the OCA's recension of Byzantine rite), it is only the Greek and Antiochian jurisdictions there that are ethnic and newer. An American Church shouldn't necessarily include Canada either - Canada is a different situation, and in fact more than two cultures. Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and the Great Plains all have varying cultures. A Canadian church at the least would have to have French, English, and Gaelic churches if it was truly evangelizing Canada.

There also seems to be a tendency to miss the forest for the trees. American super-culture (and the cultures that includes) are Anglo. There are other sub-cultures in America, but they are highly localized: ie, Cajun Louisiana, Hispanic Southwest or South Florida, Basque Idaho, German Pennsylvania, etc. We've already been dealing with this issue - the AWRV for instance, has both a Cuban and a Caribbean parish in Miami, FL. Evangelizing minorities however is not evangelizing a country - until you're getting the masses (which in America are White, monolingual Anglos, usually middle class, without interests in anything international, eclectic, foreign, of very respectable political affiliation, very pro-American, ... ie, not typical for most Orthodox converts - which tend to be academics, counter-culture (hippies, conspiracy theorists), or diletantes (ie, Orientalists, Hellenophiles, Russophiles, etc.) Which - nothing wrong with being those things: but - that isn't mainstream America, and you won't have evangelized America til you evangelize the mainstream. (And, a tangent: it would be a horrible failure to expect Americans to become counter-culture, academics, or diletantes to be Orthodox. That just isn't going to happen.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Actually, I don't think I've missed what you see to be the point. If you read my earlier posts on this thread, you should see that I've addressed the issue of Orthodoxy in America from the perspective of what you consider important, because your concerns are also my concerns. I too believe that everything we do as the Church in America must first support our attempts to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and make disciples of the American people. Therefore, I also struggle with the problems of ethnicity, culture, language, secularism, etc., that we face here, both inside and outside our churches.

However, whatever solution we determine is right for American Orthodoxy must also be faithful to the ancient canons of the Church, including those regarding hierarchical jurisdiction agreed upon in the Ecumenical Councils. Our obedience to the Great Commission does not render this canonical side of our issues irrelevant. In determining what is best for our Orthodox mission in America, we must also consider important the resolution of just who has canonical jurisdiction in North America. The problems we face in accomplishing our mission in America do not negate the fact that Christ intended His Church to be a hierarchical organization that must govern itself as such, and that everything we in the Church do must be consistent with our Church's hierarchical order. We Orthodox Christians are bound by dogma to recognize submission to our Church's canonical institution as obedience to Christ Himself.

Regarding the historical issues many here seem to consider irrelevant, we cannot properly determine the canonical solution to our mess without first knowing how we got into this mess to begin with. This puts on us the mandate to investigate and understand the historical development of Orthodoxy in America.

Peter, I realize the Russians were the ones who originally tried to create one Orthodox church in the new world. But it didn't work out due to the fall of the czar and the rise of communism. We must be realistic. The majority of the Orthodox Christians who now live in the North American continent are under the EP. I doubt very much they would be willing to switch their allegiance to the MP due to historical rights of who was here first. It will not happen. We have no idea how it will all come together but it will. We are not in a position to decide how it should happen but we can work for unity at the local level. We do have that part of the equation under our control.

Peter, I realize the Russians were the ones who originally tried to create one Orthodox church in the new world. But it didn't work out due to the fall of the czar and the rise of communism. We must be realistic. The majority of the Orthodox Christians who now live in the North American continent are under the EP. I doubt very much they would be willing to switch their allegiance to the MP due to historical rights of who was here first. It will not happen. We have no idea how it will all come together but it will. We are not in a position to decide how it should happen but we can work for unity at the local level. We do have that part of the equation under our control.

Would you agree with me, though, that we must not set aside the canonical tradition of our Church, that whatever solution we decide to implement must be faithful to the canons? For institutional unity (i.e., the abolition of parallel hierarchical jurisdictions) to become a reality, the violations of the canons that have perpetuated our current mess must be corrected, and those guilty of violating the canons must repent. We can and should work for unity at the grassroots level as you suggest, but pan-Orthodox cooperation between laity, parishes, and even bishops, though very good, can be nothing more than a temporary step toward our ultimate goal of full organizational unification. Our work toward the common goal of unity must ultimately have as its goal the return to the canonical norm of "one bishop for one city," a necessary manifestation of the spiritual and sacramental unity that already exists at the local level.

Nacho and Calligraphqueen you are totally right. Being an Orthodox christian is more than being a cultural enthusiast. It is good to like different cultures, but we must be Christians first an foremost. I think things have been changing for the better in the Orthodox church in North America over the last 20 years. We are sort of in a transitional phase. I think things will continue to change for the better in the coming years. The ethnic gettos will eventually fade away, or become rare, and the churches that reach out and are welcoming to all will prosper. Such is the way of things. After all, the Church is guided in all things by the Holy Spirit.

I'm in full agreement with you OB. Things are changing for the better and eventually the Orthodox Chuch will find its footing here.

Quote

Amen! By some of greek's reasoning, the EP may as well be the pope with universal papal jurisdiction. I guess the EP has the right to revoke anyones autonomy and has the right to rule over the entire church. By that reasoning, why not go back to the original "first among equils"? He seems to think he rules over the whole church.

Yea, GIC would probably prefer if the EP ruled over the whole church. We could also have Greek liturgies done in every parish also.

Quote

Nacho,

I can understand your frustration at how you see things being done but try to keep in mind that it has really only been a short twenty years since even the Antiochians opened the doors wide for anyone to join Orthodoxy. In an Orthodox time frame, things have changed dramatically in our archdiocese and yet we still have much work to do. Education in the faith is key for those who have been Orthodox forever and for those who are new to the church. Building bridges between the two groups is very important. Many of those seemingly stubborn, ethnocentric immigrants were raised with the notion that preservation and protection of the faith is their role. They were not raised to evangelize because to evangelize meant death in the countries they were born. They unconsciously passed these beliefs on to the children and grandchildren. And while it is true that many of the second and especially the third generation have left the churches in large numbers, most of the immigrants really are at a loss to know how to bring them back to the church because where they come from there was no competition for the church.

While I agree we need to reach out and evangelize I just hope those new to the church can look with gratitude to those who have brought Orthodoxy to America. Many of those old-timers and immigrants have much to share if one gives them the opportunity. If we can look at them as examples of living tradition then it may not only change our perspective of them but it also may change their perspective of themselves. In other words, they may begin to take on the role of mentors in the faith if we look to them with the eyes of a student. What a blessing for everyone if this would happen in reality. We have one Palestinian immigrant woman in our parish who has grown into that role because we have so many who are new to the church and have turned to her to ask her how things were done in the Holy Land. And while some may balk at this idea of trying to imitate what was done in another culture, I would only suggest that Russians learned many things from the Greeks when they were first evangelized and then transformed the traditions and customs to fit within their own culture. . Just alot of random thoughts...I hope some of it makes sense Wink

Tamara, more words of wisdom! I really like what you have to say, really makes me think about certian angles I may not have seen before. I think the healthiest mix of people are both convert and ethnic Orthodox.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

I think the healthiest mix of people are both convert and ethnic Orthodox.

Hear, hear! Kind of like what we've got here on OCnet. Listening to one another and learning from one another rather than setting up "groups" and "counter-groups" within the Church, each trying to dominate the other.Let the Church in the Americas develop under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in His time. As Tamara points out, demographics change while Parish Churches remain in the same location. Those that change with the demographics will continue, and those which do not change will have served their purpose and will end.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Let the Church in the Americas develop under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in His time.

That, to me, is the key here. I'm not suggesting we be complacent, but at the same time we need to accept the fact that the Holy Spirit is behind the details of what's going on.

As an example, currently we use about 30% Greek in our Liturgy. The greatest opposition to deleting Greek altogether comes from the convert community, who are coming into the parish to such a degree that we almost ran out of chrism a few months ago. When asked, it is the converts who are the most conservative on this issue and adamant that, for them, the Greek culture and language that they have absorbed must be preserved (the majority of second or third generation Greeks can go either way on this issue).

Other parishes in this city are also gaining converts, because they feel more at home in the settings of the OCA, MP, or Antiochian parishes here.

This is actually a strength of the Orthodox here in this country: the Pearl of Great Price is in multiple settings in most larger communities in the US. If a person doesn't like the Pearl in the Greek setting, they can go to the Antiochians or OCA or SOC. It's all the same Pearl, but now through the multiple parishes here a potential convert can determine where they think they can work out their salvation to their own best advantage.

Now, the suggestions of folks who are OCA or Antiochian will work well for those folks who want to enter those jurisdictions. However, talking to the adults who want to enter the GOA here, they would not want to convert to Orthodoxy if we did not continue in our Greek culture, a portion of which is the Greek language. For them, it's a deal breaker: the converts want the Greek...go figure!

In the fullness of time and under the Spirit's direction, we may eventually all be under one hierarch. Until then we must continue or discussions with our brothers and sisters who are Orthodox and wait until that holy moment in time. However, we should not have much anguish or let this situation trouble us too greatly, as this is the situation the Spirit has placed us in.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Would you agree with me, though, that we must not set aside the canonical tradition of our Church, that whatever solution we decide to implement must be faithful to the canons? For institutional unity (i.e., the abolition of parallel hierarchical jurisdictions) to become a reality, the violations of the canons that have perpetuated our current mess must be corrected, and those guilty of violating the canons must repent. We can and should work for unity at the grassroots level as you suggest, but pan-Orthodox cooperation between laity, parishes, and even bishops, though very good, can be nothing more than a temporary step toward our ultimate goal of full organizational unification. Our work toward the common goal of unity must ultimately have as its goal the return to the canonical norm of "one bishop for one city," a necessary manifestation of the spiritual and sacramental unity that already exists at the local level.

I would agree with almost all you have said except forcing someone to repent. Repentence comes from within by the promptings of the Holy Spirit who uses the conscience to give one the spirit of sorrow over wrong-doing. But repentence is more than just a feeling of remorse. It means turning from what one did previously and walking toward our Lord. If we all unify as you have described we will walking in the same direction.

I really like what you have to say, really makes me think about certian angles I may not have seen before. I think the healthiest mix of people are both convert and ethnic Orthodox.

Nacho, I spent the first half of my life with the ethnics and I now I am spending the next part of my life with the newly Orthodox. I love both communities and I can see clearly the benefits of all of us working together. We each have so much to offer the other. The enthusiasm of those who are new to the faith mixed with refinement of wisdom from those who have been Orthodox for years will produce more fruit....in other words, will bring more people to Orthodoxy and will keep them in the faith through the stablity of the parish.